ILNews

Opinions March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al.
49A02-1002-PL-125
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to enjoin the commission from issuing new beer dealer’s permits in locations in which the statutory limits on the number of beer dealer’s permits have been met or exceeded. The Commission’s interpretation of 7.1-3 is reasonable and doesn’t violate Title 7.1. The IABR also failed to show its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if no injunction is issued.

Eddie M. Taylor v. State of Indiana

20A03-1003-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Taylor’s decision to proceed pro se was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and he was not denied the right to counsel, as he was appointed counsel the day before his trial was scheduled to begin.

State of Indiana v. Danny LeFlore (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-698
Criminal. Reverses denial of the state’s motion to use pretrial statements of witnesses who had been excluded. Remands with instructions that the trial court hear the state’s evidence and make a determination as to whether LeFlore’s conduct rendered the witnesses unavailable for cross-examination and thus, whether LeFlore forfeited his right to confrontation.

J.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order following adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

C.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-JV-912
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing acts that would be battery, criminal recklessness, and dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult. Affirms order committing C.H. to the Department of Correction.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.C.; J.C. v. Tippecanoe County DCS (NFP)
79A04-1007-JT-495
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT